ArticleHeart and vessels2018
Feasibility and safety of outpatient cardiac catheterization with intracoronary acetylcholine provocation test.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive diagnosis of vasospastic angina.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Review
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy after resuscitation from cardiac arrest in vasospastic angina: A retrospective study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Vasospastic angina and overlapping cardiac disorders in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest.Heart and vessels · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test is useful to diagnose vasospastic angina. Although outpatient coronary angiography has been widely performed in current clinical settings, the feasibility and safety of ACh provocation test in outpatient services are unclear. A total of 323 patients, who electively underwent ACh provocation test in hospitalization and outpatient services, were included. Coronary angiography was performed after insertion of a temporary pacing electrode in the right ventricle. The positive diagnosis of intracoronary ACh provocation test was defined as total or subtotal coronary artery narrowing accompanied by chest pain and/or ischemic electrocardiographic changes. Cardiac complications defined as composite of death, ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac tamponade, were evaluated. There were 201 patients (62%) in the hospitalization group and 122 patients (38%) in the outpatient group. The incidence of positive ACh provocation test was similar between the 2 groups (47 vs. 54%, p = 0.21). Coronary angiography in the outpatient group was performed through the radial artery, mostly (98%) with a 4 F sheath. Venous access site was not significantly different between the 2 groups, and the sheath size was 5 F in all cases. There were 2 cases (1.0%) of cardiac complications in the hospitalization group, whereas 1 case (0.8%), which led to unexpected hospitalization, occurred in the outpatient group. In conclusion, intracoronary ACh provocation test for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina in outpatient services was feasible and safe in selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.